The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-07-30

ocrSts their own medicine, [ protest against the
pntiment. and say 1t il something with which
you have nothing to do. If Republicans have
s.uHea tho ballot-box, if Republicans hereafter
oo tnis, the kind of medicine to give them is ju-
d.clAi medicine, and that is the kind of medicine
H,i going TO ask YOU to administer to Sim Coy
4nu MS gang. This is not question of politics.
IL Is question of crime. A very henious crime
mas nas oeen committed can do no better than to
sno sne language of Mr.. McNutt, A cursed
crime has been committed against the ballot
,oA OF this county and that is the question you
nave TO consider and determine.
want to call your attention to the indict-
nens and to the points you are called upon TO
decide The indictment charges a conspiracy.
me nrst count, as it is called. one part of the
Indictment, charges these defendants with hav-
ing conspired together for the purpose of getting
the tally papers and poll-book out of the hands
OF one Allen Hisey. The second count charges
similar conspiracy to get the tally-papers out
OF the hands of one Lorenz Schmidt they being
the taliy-papers of the second precinct of the
I"enty-third ward of Indianapolis. The indict-
ment charges that it WAS the second precinct.
The precinct as proved the first precinct.
L presume his Honor will instruct you that
court is in effect out of this indictment, but
wentyou to bear in mind this: That the subject
matter and the inquiry about that count
is not out of this The third count of the
Indictment charges conspiracy similar to what
L have mentioned with reference to Counselman's
papers. The first question for you to consider is
whether or not these papers, any of them, and
more especially the papers of Hisey, were pro-
cured from and taken out of the possession of
the legal custodian. The Indictment charges
that Hisev was the legal custodian Mr. Bynum
says that Werbe was the legal custodian. You
recollect the evidence is Werbe carried those pa
pers away. and after time he returned them to
Hisev and therefore Mr.. Bynum SAYS that there
is a variance between the proof aud between the
eharge of the Indictment aud that you must find
his clients not guilty because of that variance.
undertake to say that under the law Hisey,
the inspector, the legal custodian of those
papers, and Werbe, have carried them away
over objections and having then returned them to
Hisey, he and Hisev concurring in the fact that
Hisey should take them. they being two of the
three judges of the ,election, that made Hisey
clearly, and without doubt. the legal custodian
Of those papers at the time Perkins got them out
Of his possession.
How can a conspiracy be proyedY It can not
be proved by expressed language. IL men get to-
gether to commit a crime they do it in secret.
They do it away from the presence of others.
You can not call persons to testify they were
present and heard the agreement to commit the
crime. The only way it can be done is by cir
cunstantial evidence. You go out upon the
has been there. In the country you zee trees
blown down. That is proof storm has been
there. You go around the city and see the
about seeing that they saw the
man upon the beach, man testify about
being present and seeing the storm. But there
the evidences You them and draw your
conclusions. and so you are to find
your conclusions in this case-whether
there conspiracy.
When you come to determine who were engaged
in the conspiracy how are You to determinel
Precisely in the same way. By the acts of
those whose acts have been given and transac-
tioDs OF the Same kind IN question.
''Mr. Bynum said to you that the scratching of
these papers no crime against the United
States and that if you to strike out all the
evidence the subject of the scratching of
those papers there would be no evidence against
these defendants. Mr.. Bynum substantially
right upon that proposition If there was a
conspiracy to commit murder by A, B, and d,
and it witnesses were to come before the jury
and testify, that they A. B. G. and d stand
ing over murdered man in lane with bind
poems and pounding his brains out-if all that
with reference to the murder was stricken out,
there would be no evidence of conspiracy. You
could not prove it, but , you have no no
THAT the standing over the
ordered nan with Clubs in their hands. beat
ing his brains ont. if that is proof, say the
getting together shows the men conspired to-
geIher and determined to do it. Ap-
plying that nrin ciple this say the Schmidt
papers, although that count is bad, it is not as
the gentlemen sny, ont of the case 1t Is in the
case yet. We cannot prove who laid their hand
upon this particular paper We cannot prove
that anybody more than Coy and Perkins, by di-
rect testimony, laid their hands upon Mattler's
papers and upon Hisey's papers, but we charge
there was a conspiracy to get
hold of those paners and we
have proved the conspiracy broader than that.
We claim the conspiracy on the part of these
parties was to get hold of all the papers, or
enough of tie papers, to effect an object-thatis,
is what the change in Hisey's paper as for, and
Counselman's papers Therefore, when we come
to Schmidt's papers we find precisely the same
change there. We find whoever did il working
upon that paper effect the same end-the
change on the Schmidt paper the same on the
ether paper So far as the candidate was con-
cerned, therefore, say whoever did that are as
guilty as if they had laid their hands upon the
papers of Hisey themselves, and it is proper evi-
dence in determining who were engaged in the
conspiracy. / propose to call your attention to
10
conspiracy. But before do that will go back
a step
"Was there a crime committed. ! need only
to call your attention to these seven papers to
prove that fact. There are seven silent Witnesses
that testify to the fact crime has been COM
mitted. You see how each OF these papers are
and you have no doubt about the fact
that a crime has been committed. The next
subject: Why was that crime committed Was
these seven papers. There a scratch to change
the result between Ayres and Irwin.
Take the next of the seven and there is
scratch 20 effect the same purpose. Take the
9th thers-all OF them-and you find the scratches
are ali made to effect the same result How did
it happenR Die a man here and a man yonder,
conceive the idea of scratching paperf 1t he
did he might have scratched one as to Ayres and
as to Irvin But is it likely that they would
have fallen upon the same subject to scratch
Could all these scratchings have pointed to the
same end-could it all have been by
accldentz Could several men more have
scratched all these papers to reach the same end
without a previous agreement that that object
was to be plishedl submit it to you that
there was a conspiracy to scratch these papers
who scratched these papersf Mr.. McNutt |
says Perkins did it all. Mr. MeNutt says that
this cursed crime was committed by Perkins |
and Perkins alone, and that nobody else had
any thing to do with it. Do you believe that |
Perkins scratched Hisey's paperss You do, be- |
,ause Perkins said SO. Do you believe that |
nobody else had anything to do with that |
Perkins savs that Coy had. Mr..
G mt nd he fort he defense
Coy had not. If Perkins alone did that scratch
ing, where did he do it2 Who got those papers |
from Hisey and had them out ABOUT fifteen |
minutes, as he testifes and Hisey testifess If |
Perkins scratched those papers alone, where did |
ne go to do it! In what room in the court house! |
w here he2 Did he go to the cellar. into the |
attic. or into one of the court-roomsF But that |
was in the daytime Was he all alone2 Was he |
liding from Sim Coy2 DID he have |
that tally-shee under his coat and sneak |
away that Sim Coy might not see hims |
Perkins vas the room with Coy. teetl- |